31.738
Bearbeitungen
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
Zeile 43: | Zeile 43: | ||
=== Evaluation === | === Evaluation === | ||
*Role of violence and non-violence in bringing about abolition | |||
*Role of moral arguments (equality, humanity), narratives (Uncle Tom's Cabin), and symbols (Wedgwood medallions): what - if anything - made abolition convincing to a larger public | |||
*Role of corruption in lobbying and influencing votes in legislature (Lincoln) | |||
*Role of religious frame of reference and specific potential of Quaker religion. | |||
What is justice? What is tolerable? And what should never ever be tolerated by any human society? Here we touch upon [http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gallie-Essentially-Contested-Concepts.pdf essentially contested concepts] and fundamental conflicts that have been riveting the public of all ages and cultures. By definition, abolitionists turn against an established order by challenging the legitimacy of one of its legal institutions (e.g. slavery) which they, the abolitionists, claim to be utterly unjust and morally completely untenable. This radical reproach does not make them popular with the defenders of the status quo. More often than not they picture abolitionists as irresponsible and dangerous radicals at the lunatic fringes of society. Every now and then, though, history concedes victory to the abolitionist cause - such as in the case of slavery. In those cases, abolitionism gains high respect after victory, and to have overcome an inhumane institution suddenly turns into a source of pride for the whole nation. | What is justice? What is tolerable? And what should never ever be tolerated by any human society? Here we touch upon [http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gallie-Essentially-Contested-Concepts.pdf essentially contested concepts] and fundamental conflicts that have been riveting the public of all ages and cultures. By definition, abolitionists turn against an established order by challenging the legitimacy of one of its legal institutions (e.g. slavery) which they, the abolitionists, claim to be utterly unjust and morally completely untenable. This radical reproach does not make them popular with the defenders of the status quo. More often than not they picture abolitionists as irresponsible and dangerous radicals at the lunatic fringes of society. Every now and then, though, history concedes victory to the abolitionist cause - such as in the case of slavery. In those cases, abolitionism gains high respect after victory, and to have overcome an inhumane institution suddenly turns into a source of pride for the whole nation. |